cowboycwr said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Clearly Art Briles' fault, right?

This is where we argue back to the question that started the thread. There is no evidence that Briles covered up sexual assault. There's damn sure no evidence he participated in it. So what's the causal link?

Your post of shocking words is a great example of what happened. Regents got shocked by something that happens to be a longstanding national epidemic, so under PR pressure they panicked and fired 3 high profile people in a flurry of self righteous grandstanding. All while still not being forthcoming. Let's scapegoat a few people as ostensible rape accessories and hope that satisfies Texas monthly and Twitter.

---

Here is the summary

Here is the detail behind that summary


It is right there, but you don't really care to know. You are as insincere as can be. You are arguing your entrenched position. You will attack the messenger and ignore the message

---

I notice you didn't I include the letter to Briles clearing him of any wrong.

And you seem to accept that FOF is 100% true and they didn't lie in it.

---

That letter to Briles was written by a team of lawyers. It cleared him of nothing.

---

Yeah ok. But back in reality it did.

---

Well, technically it may have "cleared" him of two things which no one ever accused him of.

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Clearly Art Briles' fault, right?

This is where we argue back to the question that started the thread. There is no evidence that Briles covered up sexual assault. There's damn sure no evidence he participated in it. So what's the causal link?

Your post of shocking words is a great example of what happened. Regents got shocked by something that happens to be a longstanding national epidemic, so under PR pressure they panicked and fired 3 high profile people in a flurry of self righteous grandstanding. All while still not being forthcoming. Let's scapegoat a few people as ostensible rape accessories and hope that satisfies Texas monthly and Twitter.

---

Here is the summary

Here is the detail behind that summary


It is right there, but you don't really care to know. You are as insincere as can be. You are arguing your entrenched position. You will attack the messenger and ignore the message

---

I notice you didn't I include the letter to Briles clearing him of any wrong.

And you seem to accept that FOF is 100% true and they didn't lie in it.

---

That letter to Briles was written by a team of lawyers. It cleared him of nothing.

---

Yeah ok. But back in reality it did.

---

Well, technically it may have "cleared" him of two things which no one ever accused him of.

---

Yep, prepositions and qualifiers are just lost on some

+



Hard to make your case against him, especially with Art's name now coming up at many P5 programs next season...

If Junior Samples couldnt figure out that running his show like a gas station lizard would get him fired at Baylor, we should be ashamed he was our coach.

Yogi said:

---

+



Hard to make your case against him, especially with Art's name now coming up at many P5 programs next season...

---

His name isn't being brought up anywhere other than through crazy fans on the internet and #CABers wishful thinking.

Yogi, he cannot even get a job consulting for a winless CFL team because the broadcasters cannot take him.
He is a hazard to the bottom line. He and Jerry Sandusky have something very big in common.

Bear8084 said:

---

Yogi said:

---

+



Hard to make your case against him, especially with Art's name now coming up at many P5 programs next season...

---

His name isn't being brought up anywhere other than through crazy fans on the internet and #CABers wishful thinking.

---

maybe UTEP

xiledinok said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Regents go 0-12 and Art Briles and Jerry Sandusky have something big in common.
Dildo and a few run rogue regents run into college football's version of Hee Haw's Junior Samples and things go badly.

---

Briles and Sandusky have nothing in common. Sandusky was raping boys in the PSU showers for nearly 2 decades. There's zero in common. Just get lost with that crap.

---

Art and Sandusky most certainly have something big in common.
Briles ran that pr campaign and then ran their protest. It was stupid and proved to show no situational awareness. The response to his actions blew up. He also had no allies anywhere in coaching or among tv money.
It was all preventable but it was all about getting it done the easy way. Weak leadership in time of crisis at all levels.
Junior Samples was ignorant and loved.

---

So Briles and Sandusky have a commonality in that they both ran failed PR campaigns? L.O.L. Nobody in Texas gives a rip about Sandusky just like nobody in Pennsylvania gives a rip about Briles. You need to get out more. That's one of the weirdest things I've ever read. Just nonsense.

xiledinok said:

---

If Junior Samples couldnt figure out that running his show like a gas station lizard would get him fired at Baylor, we should be ashamed he was our coach.

---

I am proud of Briles.
I am ashamed and embarrassed by Baylor.

X is real proud he came up with the Junior Samples allusion. He thinks it makes a point

xiledinok said:

---

He and Jerry Sandusky have something very big in common.

---

This isn't true
(couldn't work in the Junior Samples reference, could you Gomer?)

What is a gas station lizard?

Viledonk thinks comparing a convicted child rapist (Sandusky) to a guy who was given a letter of recommendation from his former employer (Briles) while simultaneously defending a guy who idolizes (Rhule)the man who covered up for the child rapist (Paterno) passes for logic.

Must be a tech grad.

Boatshoes said:

---

Viledonk thinks comparing a convicted child rapist (Sandusky) to a guy who was given a letter of recommendation from his former employer (Briles) while simultaneously defending a guy who idolizes (Rhule)the man who covered up for the child rapist (Paterno) passes for logic.

Must be a tech grad.

---

I think the Tech grad is Briles. He did not finish at UH.

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

As to your first reply, we can agree to disagree on this, but I do think the board's handling of the situation did contribute to the PR firestorm. Literally every football fan I've talked to or seen post anywhere online thinks that Briles should be in jail. I've seen people on the internet openly talk about how they think he deserves a violent death. I've had a few question why Baylor is still allowed to operate. Maybe you don't think there is anything that they could have done to avoid that being the opinion of random people. I don't agree. They could have been far more specific in the reasoning behind the firing. They left more than plenty of room for random fans to assume that Briles was actively and knowingly harboring rapists and that is exactly what random fans think happened.

As to this post-

I just can't take any bragging about getting the recommendations in place seriously at all. The board oversaw all of this. If they didn't know that Starr wasn't keeping up with Title IX well enough, shame on them. There are more than 30 of them. There was an athletics compliance sub-committee. If we had a sub-committee on athletics issues and none on Title IX compliance and campus security, shame on our board. Surely some of the more than 30 of them had heard of the 100+ schools with Title IX problems before ours came up. If none of them had, shame on them for not keeping up with university news. Don't brag to me about trying to put out a fire that started on your watch.

Our school is poorly run. I won't be sending my kids there. I grew up on the campus. I wish I could have more faith in the people who run the school. I have no reason to think that I should.

---

I'm sorry, but this is sort of ridiculous. If your BOR is super up-to-date on Title IX prior to 2015, it's becauee you've ****ed up HUGE.

It's amazing that people can give Briles a walk on Title IX responsibities, but blame 30 fundraisers that meet 6 times a year for not knowing intricate details on a law their own University President refused to engage in.

Title IX and OCR worry mostly about being "put on notice" and what you do after that point. When the BOR was finally made aware of the details, they acted.

---

The letter went out in 2011. 55 schools were announced as being under investigation in 2014.

How many industries have major compliance changes that the governing board is unaware of 4-5 years after the changes are announced?

This might well be a surprise to you, but I do think that some would guess that a football coach would know less about university compliance issues than the people in charge of governing the university.

If they are only fundraisers and aren't interested in helping run the school, get them out. We need people asking the right questions. If they only ask the right questions after the school is in a firestorm, they serve no purpose and aren't worthy of getting the fancy title they love to brag about in the good times.

Your middle paragraph just actually makes me more worried about the board. Shouldn't the board be all over it if the university president is openly ignoring a federal regulation relating to students being raped? If they aren't, why in the world are they there? Were they just thinking 'Oh well Ken is just ignoring the regs about rape, so I guess don't ask any questions there.'?

Last edit on this post - the number of people I have seen trying to say the board isn't at fault for anything that happened because they didn't actually didn't do anything blows my mind. I'm relatively young, but I've never heard anyone use the excuse 'I couldn't have done a bad job, because I wasn't doing the job at all.' outside of people saying that here for the board.

---

This is revisionist history and hindsight 20/20 viewing in its breathtaking finest.

First off, most of this "fun stuff" started in 2014. The first major DCL came out in 2011. However, it's been an iterative process ever since, with guidance being honed, tweaked, clarified nearly yearly. Also, most people have no idea how many guidance/mandates colleges and Universities get on a day-to-day basis. It's a huge part of the economy. That doesn't dismiss the need to pay attention, but it should help someone understand that there's a whole ecosystem out there. Universities are constantly putting out fires and juggling voices.

For instance, Baylor got hammered for not having a full-time, dedicated, professional Title IX Coordinator by the press. However, I happened to know that the two largest University Systems in the state didn't either at that time on their flagship campuses.

I'm just saying that 3 years is a blink of the eye. If you sincerely expect your BOR to have more than a working knowledge of Title IX structures in 2014-2015, you have no idea how a BOR works. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic.

And for the 9 BILLIONTH time, Art Briles didn't get fired because he wasn't filling out the proper paperwork. He got fired because he was actively subverting the Universities apparatus to police itself. There IS proof of this. He literally texted others about "keeping this away from Judicial Affairs." I'm sorry, but his goose was ****ing cooked when he wrote that. And that's just ONE time that we know of. For every text you've sent, you've had dozens of conversations in person or on the phone.

Secondly, there's a saying in Higher Education: "if you want to kill something, get a Regent involved." Regents have a purpose. They're there for guidance and oversight from a 60,000 ft view. If they're honestly getting involved on an inter-department basis, its because something is ****ed up. If they're asking questions about compliance, it's almost always already too late. They're not experts in education (usually). If they're counting reams of paper or asking about a student event, something is wrong.

But still, it's amazing that someone would blame a BOR (which meets like 3-6 times a year and rotates membership) for not having in-depth knowledge of a new guidance from OCR, but will give a walk to someone who is actually working full time with students. That's ****ing bonkers.

---

Nobody that I know of is blaming the BOFR for not knowing the details and intricacies of T9 and how it's implemented on campus. That's the job of the executive function. My disgust is from the BOFR's function of failing to provide proper oversight to insure that regulatory matters are handled in such a manner to insure compliance. The failure to accept any kind of responsibility or be held accountable for a university-wide systemic failure is unconscionable. We have business "leaders" on the BOFR that receive regulatory status updates all the time related to their businesses whether it be in healthcare, oil and gas, product safety, etc. Heck, I give monthly regulatory updates and their applicability to our business at least quarterly to insure we are operating within current and proposed regulation. How they didn't have a simple regulatory update or ask the right questions is mind boggling seeing as how they do it outside of their BOFR responsibilities. And the harm they've caused to victims and the Baylor brand by that failure is staggering.

---

Where did the BOR avoid taking responsibility? It's an unpaid position that rotates in and out. What were they going to do? Seriously?

Their job was to take care of business. They were the ones who hired Pepper Hamilton to find out what was actually going on (it was clear there was a lot of lying going on). They were the ones who got the report. They were the ones who mandated the changes be made. And they're also the ones who made changes in their own structure as well recommended by the report.

They're the perfect bogey-man for y'all desperate to slide any blame off of Briles because they're a group of 30+ people. But have you ever noticed that when you ask about this specific regent or that one, everyone thinks they're a "great person"? It's easy to de-individuate and hate a group of people without one face, but when you actually have to use examples it gets harder.

The fact is that there are two types of people on the outside of this: those who can deal with the fact that there is information they're not going to get and move on; and those that can't.

But people who are holding on to this idea that something was afoul and the BOR alone is to blame, are deluding themselves.

---

Last I saw nobody from the BOFR resigned out of even embarrassment and one (the sex toy salesman) even received an additional year on the board for legal cover for what happened under his "leadership". There's much blame to go around; Briles included, but blaming Briles and the executive function for their failures does not absolve the BOFR of its failure. You BOFR rape apologists need to get off the Briles blame train because that ride ended last year. Do you not see that but for proper oversight of T9 implementation and the board structure, we likely wouldn't be in this mess? Controls would have been implemented. I'm happy those have been remedied after years of neglect, but not all parties have accepted accountability at this point.

---

Then you need to vary your reading materual. There were resignations just over a year ago.

BBL does higher education administration for a living. Boards know what administrators tell them and what hits the media. If it hits the media, somebody is toast.

---

Which reading materials do I need to vary or update? We had 2 regents leave nearly immediately in 2016 to pursue other opportunities because they wanted nothing to do with our brand and neither accepted any kind of accountability . Willis the sex toy salesman recently left but only after getting what was an unprecedented 4th term because he needed the legal protection for what happened under his "leadership". He certainly didn't have enough shame to resign. And don't count Turner's expired term as a resignation because she was not re-elected by alumni then was quickly reappointed to the board (I don't hold her responsible since she didn't start on the BOFR until 7/2016). We cannot have a culture change until those on the BOFR from 2011 to 2015 are gone. They directed executive changes to change the culture; therefore, they need to be held to the same standard. The hypocrisy is sickening.

---

First off, I'm proud of you for finally educating yourself via google. Good for you, homey.

Secondly, if you think those regents resigned to separate themselves from our brand, you're ****ing stupid. Like, REALLY stupid. Wright has served as a Regent twice. Dr. Howard's resignation was anything buy standard. His spokesperson said he was still on the BOR well after his appointment began, but sources say he actually resigned weeks earlier.

It's not uncommon at all for people in their current positions to stay in their Regent role.

But go ahead. Live in your own little world. It's becoming increasingly clear that your ignorance and lack of expertise in this arena allow you to rationalize whatever you want to believe.

---

I don't have to use google. I've followed the BOFR and their henchmen's actions for years. Your response is a prime demonstration of the incestuous and insulated nature of the BOFR and why a culture change is long past due. An eerie coincidence is that I received an email about a year ago from a regent in the same condescending tone as your response. He mistakenly thought he was forwarding his thoughts to a few other regents but instead it came back to me. It appears I've hit a nerve with you, too. I guess that honesty, integrity, and accountability don't run in your circles either.

---

You serious? Someone was condescending to you? Someone with knowledge on the subject was annoyed with your amazingly uninformed -yet strangely confident- opinion?

Reminds me of a friend of mine who talks all the time about being a flat-earther. Great guy, but he has no self-control. He went to a job interview and the topic came up. He couldn't believe that he didn't get the job! He told me how shocked he was that people were always talking down to him and being condescending.

Sometimes when you believe stupid ****, like a conspiracy theory about the BOR firing the most successful coach in the University's history and risking the University's reputation in the process for anything other than the information they saw, people will question your intelligence.

---

All I did was state that the BOFR needed to be held accountable for failing to provide any kind of oversight for several years and you respond again demonstrating the exact attitude and mentality as what occurred in those BOFR meetings. Have fun in your quarterly BOFR circle jerks. Some of us know the truth.

---

Okay. What evidence do you have that the BOR did this out of malicious intent? What evidence do you have that Briles did nothing wrong? (Reminder, seeing as how there are records of him personally trying to hide things from Judicial Affairs, that's going to be really hard for you to do)

I want actual evidence that the BOR had NO reason to do any of this. Since you supposedly "know the truth" I won't have to wait long.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

As to your first reply, we can agree to disagree on this, but I do think the board's handling of the situation did contribute to the PR firestorm. Literally every football fan I've talked to or seen post anywhere online thinks that Briles should be in jail. I've seen people on the internet openly talk about how they think he deserves a violent death. I've had a few question why Baylor is still allowed to operate. Maybe you don't think there is anything that they could have done to avoid that being the opinion of random people. I don't agree. They could have been far more specific in the reasoning behind the firing. They left more than plenty of room for random fans to assume that Briles was actively and knowingly harboring rapists and that is exactly what random fans think happened.

As to this post-

I just can't take any bragging about getting the recommendations in place seriously at all. The board oversaw all of this. If they didn't know that Starr wasn't keeping up with Title IX well enough, shame on them. There are more than 30 of them. There was an athletics compliance sub-committee. If we had a sub-committee on athletics issues and none on Title IX compliance and campus security, shame on our board. Surely some of the more than 30 of them had heard of the 100+ schools with Title IX problems before ours came up. If none of them had, shame on them for not keeping up with university news. Don't brag to me about trying to put out a fire that started on your watch.

Our school is poorly run. I won't be sending my kids there. I grew up on the campus. I wish I could have more faith in the people who run the school. I have no reason to think that I should.

---

I'm sorry, but this is sort of ridiculous. If your BOR is super up-to-date on Title IX prior to 2015, it's becauee you've ****ed up HUGE.

It's amazing that people can give Briles a walk on Title IX responsibities, but blame 30 fundraisers that meet 6 times a year for not knowing intricate details on a law their own University President refused to engage in.

Title IX and OCR worry mostly about being "put on notice" and what you do after that point. When the BOR was finally made aware of the details, they acted.

---

The letter went out in 2011. 55 schools were announced as being under investigation in 2014.

How many industries have major compliance changes that the governing board is unaware of 4-5 years after the changes are announced?

This might well be a surprise to you, but I do think that some would guess that a football coach would know less about university compliance issues than the people in charge of governing the university.

If they are only fundraisers and aren't interested in helping run the school, get them out. We need people asking the right questions. If they only ask the right questions after the school is in a firestorm, they serve no purpose and aren't worthy of getting the fancy title they love to brag about in the good times.

Your middle paragraph just actually makes me more worried about the board. Shouldn't the board be all over it if the university president is openly ignoring a federal regulation relating to students being raped? If they aren't, why in the world are they there? Were they just thinking 'Oh well Ken is just ignoring the regs about rape, so I guess don't ask any questions there.'?

Last edit on this post - the number of people I have seen trying to say the board isn't at fault for anything that happened because they didn't actually didn't do anything blows my mind. I'm relatively young, but I've never heard anyone use the excuse 'I couldn't have done a bad job, because I wasn't doing the job at all.' outside of people saying that here for the board.

---

This is revisionist history and hindsight 20/20 viewing in its breathtaking finest.

First off, most of this "fun stuff" started in 2014. The first major DCL came out in 2011. However, it's been an iterative process ever since, with guidance being honed, tweaked, clarified nearly yearly. Also, most people have no idea how many guidance/mandates colleges and Universities get on a day-to-day basis. It's a huge part of the economy. That doesn't dismiss the need to pay attention, but it should help someone understand that there's a whole ecosystem out there. Universities are constantly putting out fires and juggling voices.

For instance, Baylor got hammered for not having a full-time, dedicated, professional Title IX Coordinator by the press. However, I happened to know that the two largest University Systems in the state didn't either at that time on their flagship campuses.

I'm just saying that 3 years is a blink of the eye. If you sincerely expect your BOR to have more than a working knowledge of Title IX structures in 2014-2015, you have no idea how a BOR works. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic.

And for the 9 BILLIONTH time, Art Briles didn't get fired because he wasn't filling out the proper paperwork. He got fired because he was actively subverting the Universities apparatus to police itself. There IS proof of this. He literally texted others about "keeping this away from Judicial Affairs." I'm sorry, but his goose was ****ing cooked when he wrote that. And that's just ONE time that we know of. For every text you've sent, you've had dozens of conversations in person or on the phone.

Secondly, there's a saying in Higher Education: "if you want to kill something, get a Regent involved." Regents have a purpose. They're there for guidance and oversight from a 60,000 ft view. If they're honestly getting involved on an inter-department basis, its because something is ****ed up. If they're asking questions about compliance, it's almost always already too late. They're not experts in education (usually). If they're counting reams of paper or asking about a student event, something is wrong.

But still, it's amazing that someone would blame a BOR (which meets like 3-6 times a year and rotates membership) for not having in-depth knowledge of a new guidance from OCR, but will give a walk to someone who is actually working full time with students. That's ****ing bonkers.

---

Nobody that I know of is blaming the BOFR for not knowing the details and intricacies of T9 and how it's implemented on campus. That's the job of the executive function. My disgust is from the BOFR's function of failing to provide proper oversight to insure that regulatory matters are handled in such a manner to insure compliance. The failure to accept any kind of responsibility or be held accountable for a university-wide systemic failure is unconscionable. We have business "leaders" on the BOFR that receive regulatory status updates all the time related to their businesses whether it be in healthcare, oil and gas, product safety, etc. Heck, I give monthly regulatory updates and their applicability to our business at least quarterly to insure we are operating within current and proposed regulation. How they didn't have a simple regulatory update or ask the right questions is mind boggling seeing as how they do it outside of their BOFR responsibilities. And the harm they've caused to victims and the Baylor brand by that failure is staggering.

---

Where did the BOR avoid taking responsibility? It's an unpaid position that rotates in and out. What were they going to do? Seriously?

Their job was to take care of business. They were the ones who hired Pepper Hamilton to find out what was actually going on (it was clear there was a lot of lying going on). They were the ones who got the report. They were the ones who mandated the changes be made. And they're also the ones who made changes in their own structure as well recommended by the report.

They're the perfect bogey-man for y'all desperate to slide any blame off of Briles because they're a group of 30+ people. But have you ever noticed that when you ask about this specific regent or that one, everyone thinks they're a "great person"? It's easy to de-individuate and hate a group of people without one face, but when you actually have to use examples it gets harder.

The fact is that there are two types of people on the outside of this: those who can deal with the fact that there is information they're not going to get and move on; and those that can't.

But people who are holding on to this idea that something was afoul and the BOR alone is to blame, are deluding themselves.

---

Last I saw nobody from the BOFR resigned out of even embarrassment and one (the sex toy salesman) even received an additional year on the board for legal cover for what happened under his "leadership". There's much blame to go around; Briles included, but blaming Briles and the executive function for their failures does not absolve the BOFR of its failure. You BOFR rape apologists need to get off the Briles blame train because that ride ended last year. Do you not see that but for proper oversight of T9 implementation and the board structure, we likely wouldn't be in this mess? Controls would have been implemented. I'm happy those have been remedied after years of neglect, but not all parties have accepted accountability at this point.

---

Then you need to vary your reading materual. There were resignations just over a year ago.

BBL does higher education administration for a living. Boards know what administrators tell them and what hits the media. If it hits the media, somebody is toast.

---

Which reading materials do I need to vary or update? We had 2 regents leave nearly immediately in 2016 to pursue other opportunities because they wanted nothing to do with our brand and neither accepted any kind of accountability . Willis the sex toy salesman recently left but only after getting what was an unprecedented 4th term because he needed the legal protection for what happened under his "leadership". He certainly didn't have enough shame to resign. And don't count Turner's expired term as a resignation because she was not re-elected by alumni then was quickly reappointed to the board (I don't hold her responsible since she didn't start on the BOFR until 7/2016). We cannot have a culture change until those on the BOFR from 2011 to 2015 are gone. They directed executive changes to change the culture; therefore, they need to be held to the same standard. The hypocrisy is sickening.

---

First off, I'm proud of you for finally educating yourself via google. Good for you, homey.

Secondly, if you think those regents resigned to separate themselves from our brand, you're ****ing stupid. Like, REALLY stupid. Wright has served as a Regent twice. Dr. Howard's resignation was anything buy standard. His spokesperson said he was still on the BOR well after his appointment began, but sources say he actually resigned weeks earlier.

It's not uncommon at all for people in their current positions to stay in their Regent role.

But go ahead. Live in your own little world. It's becoming increasingly clear that your ignorance and lack of expertise in this arena allow you to rationalize whatever you want to believe.

---

I don't have to use google. I've followed the BOFR and their henchmen's actions for years. Your response is a prime demonstration of the incestuous and insulated nature of the BOFR and why a culture change is long past due. An eerie coincidence is that I received an email about a year ago from a regent in the same condescending tone as your response. He mistakenly thought he was forwarding his thoughts to a few other regents but instead it came back to me. It appears I've hit a nerve with you, too. I guess that honesty, integrity, and accountability don't run in your circles either.

---

You serious? Someone was condescending to you? Someone with knowledge on the subject was annoyed with your amazingly uninformed -yet strangely confident- opinion?

Reminds me of a friend of mine who talks all the time about being a flat-earther. Great guy, but he has no self-control. He went to a job interview and the topic came up. He couldn't believe that he didn't get the job! He told me how shocked he was that people were always talking down to him and being condescending.

Sometimes when you believe stupid ****, like a conspiracy theory about the BOR firing the most successful coach in the University's history and risking the University's reputation in the process for anything other than the information they saw, people will question your intelligence.

---

All I did was state that the BOFR needed to be held accountable for failing to provide any kind of oversight for several years and you respond again demonstrating the exact attitude and mentality as what occurred in those BOFR meetings. Have fun in your quarterly BOFR circle jerks. Some of us know the truth.

---

Okay. What evidence do you have that the BOR did this out of malicious intent? What evidence do you have that Briles did nothing wrong? (Reminder, seeing as how there are records of him personally trying to hide things from Judicial Affairs, that's going to be really hard for you to do)

I want actual evidence that the BOR had NO reason to do any of this. Since you supposedly "know the truth" I won't have to wait long.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

As to your first reply, we can agree to disagree on this, but I do think the board's handling of the situation did contribute to the PR firestorm. Literally every football fan I've talked to or seen post anywhere online thinks that Briles should be in jail. I've seen people on the internet openly talk about how they think he deserves a violent death. I've had a few question why Baylor is still allowed to operate. Maybe you don't think there is anything that they could have done to avoid that being the opinion of random people. I don't agree. They could have been far more specific in the reasoning behind the firing. They left more than plenty of room for random fans to assume that Briles was actively and knowingly harboring rapists and that is exactly what random fans think happened.

As to this post-

I just can't take any bragging about getting the recommendations in place seriously at all. The board oversaw all of this. If they didn't know that Starr wasn't keeping up with Title IX well enough, shame on them. There are more than 30 of them. There was an athletics compliance sub-committee. If we had a sub-committee on athletics issues and none on Title IX compliance and campus security, shame on our board. Surely some of the more than 30 of them had heard of the 100+ schools with Title IX problems before ours came up. If none of them had, shame on them for not keeping up with university news. Don't brag to me about trying to put out a fire that started on your watch.

Our school is poorly run. I won't be sending my kids there. I grew up on the campus. I wish I could have more faith in the people who run the school. I have no reason to think that I should.

---

I'm sorry, but this is sort of ridiculous. If your BOR is super up-to-date on Title IX prior to 2015, it's becauee you've ****ed up HUGE.

It's amazing that people can give Briles a walk on Title IX responsibities, but blame 30 fundraisers that meet 6 times a year for not knowing intricate details on a law their own University President refused to engage in.

Title IX and OCR worry mostly about being "put on notice" and what you do after that point. When the BOR was finally made aware of the details, they acted.

---

The letter went out in 2011. 55 schools were announced as being under investigation in 2014.

How many industries have major compliance changes that the governing board is unaware of 4-5 years after the changes are announced?

This might well be a surprise to you, but I do think that some would guess that a football coach would know less about university compliance issues than the people in charge of governing the university.

If they are only fundraisers and aren't interested in helping run the school, get them out. We need people asking the right questions. If they only ask the right questions after the school is in a firestorm, they serve no purpose and aren't worthy of getting the fancy title they love to brag about in the good times.

Your middle paragraph just actually makes me more worried about the board. Shouldn't the board be all over it if the university president is openly ignoring a federal regulation relating to students being raped? If they aren't, why in the world are they there? Were they just thinking 'Oh well Ken is just ignoring the regs about rape, so I guess don't ask any questions there.'?

Last edit on this post - the number of people I have seen trying to say the board isn't at fault for anything that happened because they didn't actually didn't do anything blows my mind. I'm relatively young, but I've never heard anyone use the excuse 'I couldn't have done a bad job, because I wasn't doing the job at all.' outside of people saying that here for the board.

---

This is revisionist history and hindsight 20/20 viewing in its breathtaking finest.

First off, most of this "fun stuff" started in 2014. The first major DCL came out in 2011. However, it's been an iterative process ever since, with guidance being honed, tweaked, clarified nearly yearly. Also, most people have no idea how many guidance/mandates colleges and Universities get on a day-to-day basis. It's a huge part of the economy. That doesn't dismiss the need to pay attention, but it should help someone understand that there's a whole ecosystem out there. Universities are constantly putting out fires and juggling voices.

For instance, Baylor got hammered for not having a full-time, dedicated, professional Title IX Coordinator by the press. However, I happened to know that the two largest University Systems in the state didn't either at that time on their flagship campuses.

I'm just saying that 3 years is a blink of the eye. If you sincerely expect your BOR to have more than a working knowledge of Title IX structures in 2014-2015, you have no idea how a BOR works. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic.

And for the 9 BILLIONTH time, Art Briles didn't get fired because he wasn't filling out the proper paperwork. He got fired because he was actively subverting the Universities apparatus to police itself. There IS proof of this. He literally texted others about "keeping this away from Judicial Affairs." I'm sorry, but his goose was ****ing cooked when he wrote that. And that's just ONE time that we know of. For every text you've sent, you've had dozens of conversations in person or on the phone.

Secondly, there's a saying in Higher Education: "if you want to kill something, get a Regent involved." Regents have a purpose. They're there for guidance and oversight from a 60,000 ft view. If they're honestly getting involved on an inter-department basis, its because something is ****ed up. If they're asking questions about compliance, it's almost always already too late. They're not experts in education (usually). If they're counting reams of paper or asking about a student event, something is wrong.

But still, it's amazing that someone would blame a BOR (which meets like 3-6 times a year and rotates membership) for not having in-depth knowledge of a new guidance from OCR, but will give a walk to someone who is actually working full time with students. That's ****ing bonkers.

---

Nobody that I know of is blaming the BOFR for not knowing the details and intricacies of T9 and how it's implemented on campus. That's the job of the executive function. My disgust is from the BOFR's function of failing to provide proper oversight to insure that regulatory matters are handled in such a manner to insure compliance. The failure to accept any kind of responsibility or be held accountable for a university-wide systemic failure is unconscionable. We have business "leaders" on the BOFR that receive regulatory status updates all the time related to their businesses whether it be in healthcare, oil and gas, product safety, etc. Heck, I give monthly regulatory updates and their applicability to our business at least quarterly to insure we are operating within current and proposed regulation. How they didn't have a simple regulatory update or ask the right questions is mind boggling seeing as how they do it outside of their BOFR responsibilities. And the harm they've caused to victims and the Baylor brand by that failure is staggering.

---

Where did the BOR avoid taking responsibility? It's an unpaid position that rotates in and out. What were they going to do? Seriously?

Their job was to take care of business. They were the ones who hired Pepper Hamilton to find out what was actually going on (it was clear there was a lot of lying going on). They were the ones who got the report. They were the ones who mandated the changes be made. And they're also the ones who made changes in their own structure as well recommended by the report.

They're the perfect bogey-man for y'all desperate to slide any blame off of Briles because they're a group of 30+ people. But have you ever noticed that when you ask about this specific regent or that one, everyone thinks they're a "great person"? It's easy to de-individuate and hate a group of people without one face, but when you actually have to use examples it gets harder.

The fact is that there are two types of people on the outside of this: those who can deal with the fact that there is information they're not going to get and move on; and those that can't.

But people who are holding on to this idea that something was afoul and the BOR alone is to blame, are deluding themselves.

---

Last I saw nobody from the BOFR resigned out of even embarrassment and one (the sex toy salesman) even received an additional year on the board for legal cover for what happened under his "leadership". There's much blame to go around; Briles included, but blaming Briles and the executive function for their failures does not absolve the BOFR of its failure. You BOFR rape apologists need to get off the Briles blame train because that ride ended last year. Do you not see that but for proper oversight of T9 implementation and the board structure, we likely wouldn't be in this mess? Controls would have been implemented. I'm happy those have been remedied after years of neglect, but not all parties have accepted accountability at this point.

---

Then you need to vary your reading materual. There were resignations just over a year ago.

BBL does higher education administration for a living. Boards know what administrators tell them and what hits the media. If it hits the media, somebody is toast.

---

Which reading materials do I need to vary or update? We had 2 regents leave nearly immediately in 2016 to pursue other opportunities because they wanted nothing to do with our brand and neither accepted any kind of accountability . Willis the sex toy salesman recently left but only after getting what was an unprecedented 4th term because he needed the legal protection for what happened under his "leadership". He certainly didn't have enough shame to resign. And don't count Turner's expired term as a resignation because she was not re-elected by alumni then was quickly reappointed to the board (I don't hold her responsible since she didn't start on the BOFR until 7/2016). We cannot have a culture change until those on the BOFR from 2011 to 2015 are gone. They directed executive changes to change the culture; therefore, they need to be held to the same standard. The hypocrisy is sickening.

---

First off, I'm proud of you for finally educating yourself via google. Good for you, homey.

Secondly, if you think those regents resigned to separate themselves from our brand, you're ****ing stupid. Like, REALLY stupid. Wright has served as a Regent twice. Dr. Howard's resignation was anything buy standard. His spokesperson said he was still on the BOR well after his appointment began, but sources say he actually resigned weeks earlier.

It's not uncommon at all for people in their current positions to stay in their Regent role.

But go ahead. Live in your own little world. It's becoming increasingly clear that your ignorance and lack of expertise in this arena allow you to rationalize whatever you want to believe.

---

I don't have to use google. I've followed the BOFR and their henchmen's actions for years. Your response is a prime demonstration of the incestuous and insulated nature of the BOFR and why a culture change is long past due. An eerie coincidence is that I received an email about a year ago from a regent in the same condescending tone as your response. He mistakenly thought he was forwarding his thoughts to a few other regents but instead it came back to me. It appears I've hit a nerve with you, too. I guess that honesty, integrity, and accountability don't run in your circles either.

---

You serious? Someone was condescending to you? Someone with knowledge on the subject was annoyed with your amazingly uninformed -yet strangely confident- opinion?

Reminds me of a friend of mine who talks all the time about being a flat-earther. Great guy, but he has no self-control. He went to a job interview and the topic came up. He couldn't believe that he didn't get the job! He told me how shocked he was that people were always talking down to him and being condescending.

Sometimes when you believe stupid ****, like a conspiracy theory about the BOR firing the most successful coach in the University's history and risking the University's reputation in the process for anything other than the information they saw, people will question your intelligence.

---

All I did was state that the BOFR needed to be held accountable for failing to provide any kind of oversight for several years and you respond again demonstrating the exact attitude and mentality as what occurred in those BOFR meetings. Have fun in your quarterly BOFR circle jerks. Some of us know the truth.

---

Okay. What evidence do you have that the BOR did this out of malicious intent? What evidence do you have that Briles did nothing wrong? (Reminder, seeing as how there are records of him personally trying to hide things from Judicial Affairs, that's going to be really hard for you to do)

I want actual evidence that the BOR had NO reason to do any of this. Since you supposedly "know the truth" I won't have to wait long.

---

You'll have to wait because I'll never out my sources in a public forum. I never stated Briles did nothing wrong. I'm not here defending Briles. You BOFR cucks need to get over him. I'll continue to ask for accountability for failing to provide oversight of regulatory programs and for the ineptitude of the entire BOFR for failing to ask even the simplest of questions as to how the university they direct is in compliance. If they are there to fundraise and meet 6 times per year, then let them do that because they obviously haven't sense enough or the care enough to provide oversight and direction if it's all about the money for them.

If the BOFR had reason to fire Briles like you state, then they had cause. If they had cause, then why pay him?

The "conspiracy theory" and "Briles did nothing wrong" labels are just straw men by the bor supporters. Briles could've done some things wrong, and the board still could've made some very bad decisions, without requiring a conspiracy.

Bear8084 said:

---

Yogi said:

---

+



Hard to make your case against him, especially with Art's name now coming up at many P5 programs next season...

---

His name isn't being brought up anywhere other than through crazy fans on the internet and #CABers wishful thinking.

---

This. The issue for any university with hiring Briles is that if he even breathes wrong, they will be exposed to significant liability since they hired him knowing that he was affiliated with significant wrongdoing at his prior job (i.e. not reporting info from coaches and delegating responsibility).

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yogi said:

---

+



Hard to make your case against him, especially with Art's name now coming up at many P5 programs next season...

---

His name isn't being brought up anywhere other than through crazy fans on the internet and #CABers wishful thinking.

---

This. The issue for any university with hiring Briles is that if he even breathes wrong, they will be exposed to significant liability since they hired him knowing that he was affiliated with significant wrongdoing at his prior job (i.e. not reporting info from coaches and delegating responsibility).

---

Funny, nowhere except for a couple of old TexAgs and Shaggy threads is anything nefarious in CABs past mentioned. Google turns up nothing of note, and UH has not any sanctions since the 1980's.

But, clearly everyone knows he is the worst man to walk the earth in decades.

303Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yogi said:

---

+



Hard to make your case against him, especially with Art's name now coming up at many P5 programs next season...

---

His name isn't being brought up anywhere other than through crazy fans on the internet and #CABers wishful thinking.

---

This. The issue for any university with hiring Briles is that if he even breathes wrong, they will be exposed to significant liability since they hired him knowing that he was affiliated with significant wrongdoing at his prior job (i.e. not reporting info from coaches and delegating responsibility).

---

Funny, nowhere except for a couple of old TexAgs and Shaggy threads is anything nefarious in CABs past mentioned. Google turns up nothing of note, and UH has not any sanctions since the 1980's.

But, clearly everyone knows he is the worst man to walk the earth in decades.

---

It's difficult to tell if this response was serious or not.

Documents: Baylor, Pepper Hamilton shifted relationship to establish attorney-client privilege

Some of you people still believe the Baylor Board of Regents are morally superior. This is what is wrong with Christianity at Baylor University.

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

Documents: Baylor, Pepper Hamilton shifted relationship to establish attorney-client privilege

Some of you people still believe the Baylor Board of Regents are morally superior. This is what is wrong with Christianity at Baylor University.

---

Because doing all the work for every plaintiff's attorney is the right thing to do ....

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

As to your first reply, we can agree to disagree on this, but I do think the board's handling of the situation did contribute to the PR firestorm. Literally every football fan I've talked to or seen post anywhere online thinks that Briles should be in jail. I've seen people on the internet openly talk about how they think he deserves a violent death. I've had a few question why Baylor is still allowed to operate. Maybe you don't think there is anything that they could have done to avoid that being the opinion of random people. I don't agree. They could have been far more specific in the reasoning behind the firing. They left more than plenty of room for random fans to assume that Briles was actively and knowingly harboring rapists and that is exactly what random fans think happened.

As to this post-

I just can't take any bragging about getting the recommendations in place seriously at all. The board oversaw all of this. If they didn't know that Starr wasn't keeping up with Title IX well enough, shame on them. There are more than 30 of them. There was an athletics compliance sub-committee. If we had a sub-committee on athletics issues and none on Title IX compliance and campus security, shame on our board. Surely some of the more than 30 of them had heard of the 100+ schools with Title IX problems before ours came up. If none of them had, shame on them for not keeping up with university news. Don't brag to me about trying to put out a fire that started on your watch.

Our school is poorly run. I won't be sending my kids there. I grew up on the campus. I wish I could have more faith in the people who run the school. I have no reason to think that I should.

---

I'm sorry, but this is sort of ridiculous. If your BOR is super up-to-date on Title IX prior to 2015, it's becauee you've ****ed up HUGE.

It's amazing that people can give Briles a walk on Title IX responsibities, but blame 30 fundraisers that meet 6 times a year for not knowing intricate details on a law their own University President refused to engage in.

Title IX and OCR worry mostly about being "put on notice" and what you do after that point. When the BOR was finally made aware of the details, they acted.

---

The letter went out in 2011. 55 schools were announced as being under investigation in 2014.

How many industries have major compliance changes that the governing board is unaware of 4-5 years after the changes are announced?

This might well be a surprise to you, but I do think that some would guess that a football coach would know less about university compliance issues than the people in charge of governing the university.

If they are only fundraisers and aren't interested in helping run the school, get them out. We need people asking the right questions. If they only ask the right questions after the school is in a firestorm, they serve no purpose and aren't worthy of getting the fancy title they love to brag about in the good times.

Your middle paragraph just actually makes me more worried about the board. Shouldn't the board be all over it if the university president is openly ignoring a federal regulation relating to students being raped? If they aren't, why in the world are they there? Were they just thinking 'Oh well Ken is just ignoring the regs about rape, so I guess don't ask any questions there.'?

Last edit on this post - the number of people I have seen trying to say the board isn't at fault for anything that happened because they didn't actually didn't do anything blows my mind. I'm relatively young, but I've never heard anyone use the excuse 'I couldn't have done a bad job, because I wasn't doing the job at all.' outside of people saying that here for the board.

---

This is revisionist history and hindsight 20/20 viewing in its breathtaking finest.

First off, most of this "fun stuff" started in 2014. The first major DCL came out in 2011. However, it's been an iterative process ever since, with guidance being honed, tweaked, clarified nearly yearly. Also, most people have no idea how many guidance/mandates colleges and Universities get on a day-to-day basis. It's a huge part of the economy. That doesn't dismiss the need to pay attention, but it should help someone understand that there's a whole ecosystem out there. Universities are constantly putting out fires and juggling voices.

For instance, Baylor got hammered for not having a full-time, dedicated, professional Title IX Coordinator by the press. However, I happened to know that the two largest University Systems in the state didn't either at that time on their flagship campuses.

I'm just saying that 3 years is a blink of the eye. If you sincerely expect your BOR to have more than a working knowledge of Title IX structures in 2014-2015, you have no idea how a BOR works. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic.

And for the 9 BILLIONTH time, Art Briles didn't get fired because he wasn't filling out the proper paperwork. He got fired because he was actively subverting the Universities apparatus to police itself. There IS proof of this. He literally texted others about "keeping this away from Judicial Affairs." I'm sorry, but his goose was ****ing cooked when he wrote that. And that's just ONE time that we know of. For every text you've sent, you've had dozens of conversations in person or on the phone.

Secondly, there's a saying in Higher Education: "if you want to kill something, get a Regent involved." Regents have a purpose. They're there for guidance and oversight from a 60,000 ft view. If they're honestly getting involved on an inter-department basis, its because something is ****ed up. If they're asking questions about compliance, it's almost always already too late. They're not experts in education (usually). If they're counting reams of paper or asking about a student event, something is wrong.

But still, it's amazing that someone would blame a BOR (which meets like 3-6 times a year and rotates membership) for not having in-depth knowledge of a new guidance from OCR, but will give a walk to someone who is actually working full time with students. That's ****ing bonkers.

---

Nobody that I know of is blaming the BOFR for not knowing the details and intricacies of T9 and how it's implemented on campus. That's the job of the executive function. My disgust is from the BOFR's function of failing to provide proper oversight to insure that regulatory matters are handled in such a manner to insure compliance. The failure to accept any kind of responsibility or be held accountable for a university-wide systemic failure is unconscionable. We have business "leaders" on the BOFR that receive regulatory status updates all the time related to their businesses whether it be in healthcare, oil and gas, product safety, etc. Heck, I give monthly regulatory updates and their applicability to our business at least quarterly to insure we are operating within current and proposed regulation. How they didn't have a simple regulatory update or ask the right questions is mind boggling seeing as how they do it outside of their BOFR responsibilities. And the harm they've caused to victims and the Baylor brand by that failure is staggering.

---

Where did the BOR avoid taking responsibility? It's an unpaid position that rotates in and out. What were they going to do? Seriously?

Their job was to take care of business. They were the ones who hired Pepper Hamilton to find out what was actually going on (it was clear there was a lot of lying going on). They were the ones who got the report. They were the ones who mandated the changes be made. And they're also the ones who made changes in their own structure as well recommended by the report.

They're the perfect bogey-man for y'all desperate to slide any blame off of Briles because they're a group of 30+ people. But have you ever noticed that when you ask about this specific regent or that one, everyone thinks they're a "great person"? It's easy to de-individuate and hate a group of people without one face, but when you actually have to use examples it gets harder.

The fact is that there are two types of people on the outside of this: those who can deal with the fact that there is information they're not going to get and move on; and those that can't.

But people who are holding on to this idea that something was afoul and the BOR alone is to blame, are deluding themselves.

---

Last I saw nobody from the BOFR resigned out of even embarrassment and one (the sex toy salesman) even received an additional year on the board for legal cover for what happened under his "leadership". There's much blame to go around; Briles included, but blaming Briles and the executive function for their failures does not absolve the BOFR of its failure. You BOFR rape apologists need to get off the Briles blame train because that ride ended last year. Do you not see that but for proper oversight of T9 implementation and the board structure, we likely wouldn't be in this mess? Controls would have been implemented. I'm happy those have been remedied after years of neglect, but not all parties have accepted accountability at this point.

---

Then you need to vary your reading materual. There were resignations just over a year ago.

BBL does higher education administration for a living. Boards know what administrators tell them and what hits the media. If it hits the media, somebody is toast.

---

Which reading materials do I need to vary or update? We had 2 regents leave nearly immediately in 2016 to pursue other opportunities because they wanted nothing to do with our brand and neither accepted any kind of accountability . Willis the sex toy salesman recently left but only after getting what was an unprecedented 4th term because he needed the legal protection for what happened under his "leadership". He certainly didn't have enough shame to resign. And don't count Turner's expired term as a resignation because she was not re-elected by alumni then was quickly reappointed to the board (I don't hold her responsible since she didn't start on the BOFR until 7/2016). We cannot have a culture change until those on the BOFR from 2011 to 2015 are gone. They directed executive changes to change the culture; therefore, they need to be held to the same standard. The hypocrisy is sickening.

---

First off, I'm proud of you for finally educating yourself via google. Good for you, homey.

Secondly, if you think those regents resigned to separate themselves from our brand, you're ****ing stupid. Like, REALLY stupid. Wright has served as a Regent twice. Dr. Howard's resignation was anything buy standard. His spokesperson said he was still on the BOR well after his appointment began, but sources say he actually resigned weeks earlier.

It's not uncommon at all for people in their current positions to stay in their Regent role.

But go ahead. Live in your own little world. It's becoming increasingly clear that your ignorance and lack of expertise in this arena allow you to rationalize whatever you want to believe.

---

I don't have to use google. I've followed the BOFR and their henchmen's actions for years. Your response is a prime demonstration of the incestuous and insulated nature of the BOFR and why a culture change is long past due. An eerie coincidence is that I received an email about a year ago from a regent in the same condescending tone as your response. He mistakenly thought he was forwarding his thoughts to a few other regents but instead it came back to me. It appears I've hit a nerve with you, too. I guess that honesty, integrity, and accountability don't run in your circles either.

---

You serious? Someone was condescending to you? Someone with knowledge on the subject was annoyed with your amazingly uninformed -yet strangely confident- opinion?

Reminds me of a friend of mine who talks all the time about being a flat-earther. Great guy, but he has no self-control. He went to a job interview and the topic came up. He couldn't believe that he didn't get the job! He told me how shocked he was that people were always talking down to him and being condescending.

Sometimes when you believe stupid ****, like a conspiracy theory about the BOR firing the most successful coach in the University's history and risking the University's reputation in the process for anything other than the information they saw, people will question your intelligence.

---

All I did was state that the BOFR needed to be held accountable for failing to provide any kind of oversight for several years and you respond again demonstrating the exact attitude and mentality as what occurred in those BOFR meetings. Have fun in your quarterly BOFR circle jerks. Some of us know the truth.

---

Okay. What evidence do you have that the BOR did this out of malicious intent? What evidence do you have that Briles did nothing wrong? (Reminder, seeing as how there are records of him personally trying to hide things from Judicial Affairs, that's going to be really hard for you to do)

I want actual evidence that the BOR had NO reason to do any of this. Since you supposedly "know the truth" I won't have to wait long.

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

As to your first reply, we can agree to disagree on this, but I do think the board's handling of the situation did contribute to the PR firestorm. Literally every football fan I've talked to or seen post anywhere online thinks that Briles should be in jail. I've seen people on the internet openly talk about how they think he deserves a violent death. I've had a few question why Baylor is still allowed to operate. Maybe you don't think there is anything that they could have done to avoid that being the opinion of random people. I don't agree. They could have been far more specific in the reasoning behind the firing. They left more than plenty of room for random fans to assume that Briles was actively and knowingly harboring rapists and that is exactly what random fans think happened.

As to this post-

I just can't take any bragging about getting the recommendations in place seriously at all. The board oversaw all of this. If they didn't know that Starr wasn't keeping up with Title IX well enough, shame on them. There are more than 30 of them. There was an athletics compliance sub-committee. If we had a sub-committee on athletics issues and none on Title IX compliance and campus security, shame on our board. Surely some of the more than 30 of them had heard of the 100+ schools with Title IX problems before ours came up. If none of them had, shame on them for not keeping up with university news. Don't brag to me about trying to put out a fire that started on your watch.

Our school is poorly run. I won't be sending my kids there. I grew up on the campus. I wish I could have more faith in the people who run the school. I have no reason to think that I should.

---

I'm sorry, but this is sort of ridiculous. If your BOR is super up-to-date on Title IX prior to 2015, it's becauee you've ****ed up HUGE.

It's amazing that people can give Briles a walk on Title IX responsibities, but blame 30 fundraisers that meet 6 times a year for not knowing intricate details on a law their own University President refused to engage in.

Title IX and OCR worry mostly about being "put on notice" and what you do after that point. When the BOR was finally made aware of the details, they acted.

---

The letter went out in 2011. 55 schools were announced as being under investigation in 2014.

How many industries have major compliance changes that the governing board is unaware of 4-5 years after the changes are announced?

This might well be a surprise to you, but I do think that some would guess that a football coach would know less about university compliance issues than the people in charge of governing the university.

If they are only fundraisers and aren't interested in helping run the school, get them out. We need people asking the right questions. If they only ask the right questions after the school is in a firestorm, they serve no purpose and aren't worthy of getting the fancy title they love to brag about in the good times.

Your middle paragraph just actually makes me more worried about the board. Shouldn't the board be all over it if the university president is openly ignoring a federal regulation relating to students being raped? If they aren't, why in the world are they there? Were they just thinking 'Oh well Ken is just ignoring the regs about rape, so I guess don't ask any questions there.'?

Last edit on this post - the number of people I have seen trying to say the board isn't at fault for anything that happened because they didn't actually didn't do anything blows my mind. I'm relatively young, but I've never heard anyone use the excuse 'I couldn't have done a bad job, because I wasn't doing the job at all.' outside of people saying that here for the board.

---

This is revisionist history and hindsight 20/20 viewing in its breathtaking finest.

First off, most of this "fun stuff" started in 2014. The first major DCL came out in 2011. However, it's been an iterative process ever since, with guidance being honed, tweaked, clarified nearly yearly. Also, most people have no idea how many guidance/mandates colleges and Universities get on a day-to-day basis. It's a huge part of the economy. That doesn't dismiss the need to pay attention, but it should help someone understand that there's a whole ecosystem out there. Universities are constantly putting out fires and juggling voices.

For instance, Baylor got hammered for not having a full-time, dedicated, professional Title IX Coordinator by the press. However, I happened to know that the two largest University Systems in the state didn't either at that time on their flagship campuses.

I'm just saying that 3 years is a blink of the eye. If you sincerely expect your BOR to have more than a working knowledge of Title IX structures in 2014-2015, you have no idea how a BOR works. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic.

And for the 9 BILLIONTH time, Art Briles didn't get fired because he wasn't filling out the proper paperwork. He got fired because he was actively subverting the Universities apparatus to police itself. There IS proof of this. He literally texted others about "keeping this away from Judicial Affairs." I'm sorry, but his goose was ****ing cooked when he wrote that. And that's just ONE time that we know of. For every text you've sent, you've had dozens of conversations in person or on the phone.

Secondly, there's a saying in Higher Education: "if you want to kill something, get a Regent involved." Regents have a purpose. They're there for guidance and oversight from a 60,000 ft view. If they're honestly getting involved on an inter-department basis, its because something is ****ed up. If they're asking questions about compliance, it's almost always already too late. They're not experts in education (usually). If they're counting reams of paper or asking about a student event, something is wrong.

But still, it's amazing that someone would blame a BOR (which meets like 3-6 times a year and rotates membership) for not having in-depth knowledge of a new guidance from OCR, but will give a walk to someone who is actually working full time with students. That's ****ing bonkers.

---

Nobody that I know of is blaming the BOFR for not knowing the details and intricacies of T9 and how it's implemented on campus. That's the job of the executive function. My disgust is from the BOFR's function of failing to provide proper oversight to insure that regulatory matters are handled in such a manner to insure compliance. The failure to accept any kind of responsibility or be held accountable for a university-wide systemic failure is unconscionable. We have business "leaders" on the BOFR that receive regulatory status updates all the time related to their businesses whether it be in healthcare, oil and gas, product safety, etc. Heck, I give monthly regulatory updates and their applicability to our business at least quarterly to insure we are operating within current and proposed regulation. How they didn't have a simple regulatory update or ask the right questions is mind boggling seeing as how they do it outside of their BOFR responsibilities. And the harm they've caused to victims and the Baylor brand by that failure is staggering.

---

Where did the BOR avoid taking responsibility? It's an unpaid position that rotates in and out. What were they going to do? Seriously?

Their job was to take care of business. They were the ones who hired Pepper Hamilton to find out what was actually going on (it was clear there was a lot of lying going on). They were the ones who got the report. They were the ones who mandated the changes be made. And they're also the ones who made changes in their own structure as well recommended by the report.

They're the perfect bogey-man for y'all desperate to slide any blame off of Briles because they're a group of 30+ people. But have you ever noticed that when you ask about this specific regent or that one, everyone thinks they're a "great person"? It's easy to de-individuate and hate a group of people without one face, but when you actually have to use examples it gets harder.

The fact is that there are two types of people on the outside of this: those who can deal with the fact that there is information they're not going to get and move on; and those that can't.

But people who are holding on to this idea that something was afoul and the BOR alone is to blame, are deluding themselves.

---

Last I saw nobody from the BOFR resigned out of even embarrassment and one (the sex toy salesman) even received an additional year on the board for legal cover for what happened under his "leadership". There's much blame to go around; Briles included, but blaming Briles and the executive function for their failures does not absolve the BOFR of its failure. You BOFR rape apologists need to get off the Briles blame train because that ride ended last year. Do you not see that but for proper oversight of T9 implementation and the board structure, we likely wouldn't be in this mess? Controls would have been implemented. I'm happy those have been remedied after years of neglect, but not all parties have accepted accountability at this point.

---

Then you need to vary your reading materual. There were resignations just over a year ago.

BBL does higher education administration for a living. Boards know what administrators tell them and what hits the media. If it hits the media, somebody is toast.

---

Which reading materials do I need to vary or update? We had 2 regents leave nearly immediately in 2016 to pursue other opportunities because they wanted nothing to do with our brand and neither accepted any kind of accountability . Willis the sex toy salesman recently left but only after getting what was an unprecedented 4th term because he needed the legal protection for what happened under his "leadership". He certainly didn't have enough shame to resign. And don't count Turner's expired term as a resignation because she was not re-elected by alumni then was quickly reappointed to the board (I don't hold her responsible since she didn't start on the BOFR until 7/2016). We cannot have a culture change until those on the BOFR from 2011 to 2015 are gone. They directed executive changes to change the culture; therefore, they need to be held to the same standard. The hypocrisy is sickening.

---

First off, I'm proud of you for finally educating yourself via google. Good for you, homey.

Secondly, if you think those regents resigned to separate themselves from our brand, you're ****ing stupid. Like, REALLY stupid. Wright has served as a Regent twice. Dr. Howard's resignation was anything buy standard. His spokesperson said he was still on the BOR well after his appointment began, but sources say he actually resigned weeks earlier.

It's not uncommon at all for people in their current positions to stay in their Regent role.

But go ahead. Live in your own little world. It's becoming increasingly clear that your ignorance and lack of expertise in this arena allow you to rationalize whatever you want to believe.

---

I don't have to use google. I've followed the BOFR and their henchmen's actions for years. Your response is a prime demonstration of the incestuous and insulated nature of the BOFR and why a culture change is long past due. An eerie coincidence is that I received an email about a year ago from a regent in the same condescending tone as your response. He mistakenly thought he was forwarding his thoughts to a few other regents but instead it came back to me. It appears I've hit a nerve with you, too. I guess that honesty, integrity, and accountability don't run in your circles either.

---

You serious? Someone was condescending to you? Someone with knowledge on the subject was annoyed with your amazingly uninformed -yet strangely confident- opinion?

Reminds me of a friend of mine who talks all the time about being a flat-earther. Great guy, but he has no self-control. He went to a job interview and the topic came up. He couldn't believe that he didn't get the job! He told me how shocked he was that people were always talking down to him and being condescending.

Sometimes when you believe stupid ****, like a conspiracy theory about the BOR firing the most successful coach in the University's history and risking the University's reputation in the process for anything other than the information they saw, people will question your intelligence.

---

All I did was state that the BOFR needed to be held accountable for failing to provide any kind of oversight for several years and you respond again demonstrating the exact attitude and mentality as what occurred in those BOFR meetings. Have fun in your quarterly BOFR circle jerks. Some of us know the truth.

---

Okay. What evidence do you have that the BOR did this out of malicious intent? What evidence do you have that Briles did nothing wrong? (Reminder, seeing as how there are records of him personally trying to hide things from Judicial Affairs, that's going to be really hard for you to do)

I want actual evidence that the BOR had NO reason to do any of this. Since you supposedly "know the truth" I won't have to wait long.

---

You'll have to wait because I'll never out my sources in a public forum. I never stated Briles did nothing wrong. I'm not here defending Briles. You BOFR cucks need to get over him. I'll continue to ask for accountability for failing to provide oversight of regulatory programs and for the ineptitude of the entire BOFR for failing to ask even the simplest of questions as to how the university they direct is in compliance. If they are there to fundraise and meet 6 times per year, then let them do that because they obviously haven't sense enough or the care enough to provide oversight and direction if it's all about the money for them.

If the BOFR had reason to fire Briles like you state, then they had cause. If they had cause, then why pay him?

---

Yoak, you can't reason with irrational fools. These folks simply aren't making sense anymore. Its embarrassing. We've established the board is a disaster and their poor decision making has been proven time and again. If someone can't concede this simple truism.. then there is no point. They clearly live in an alternate world.

"Baylor wishes Coach Briles well in his future endeavors."
https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/texas/baylor-and-briles-agree-to-terminate-relationship/

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

Documents: Baylor, Pepper Hamilton shifted relationship to establish attorney-client privilege

Some of you people still believe the Baylor Board of Regents are morally superior. This is what is wrong with Christianity at Baylor University.

---

Let's not forget about the dildo salesman, the bank wrecker, and the ceo who was fired for pencil-whipping his expense reports . All documented publicly via Google.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Funny, nowhere except for a couple of old TexAgs and Shaggy threads is anything nefarious in CABs past mentioned. Google turns up nothing of note, and UH has not any sanctions since the 1980's.

But, clearly everyone knows he is the worst man to walk the earth in decades.

---

It's difficult to tell if this response was serious or not.

---

Misread your previous post, thought you meant Baylor's hire.

But there isn't really any difference, man has never bee indicted, arrested or tried, and has been non-suited or dismissed from every suit that named him.

Legally, he has never done anything.

Thus, no liability for any future employer (if any).

Osodecentx said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

He and Jerry Sandusky have something very big in common.

---

This isn't true
(couldn't work in the Junior Samples reference, could you Gomer?)

---

Should be flattered to be compared to Junior Samples. Junior left a great legacy.
Isn't true?
Just admit Art lost the PR game.
I didn't play that game. Just pointing out how it turned out.
Fairness, would have been to show maturity and duck out of sight for a year or two.
Another path was taken and results were not good.

xiledinok said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

He and Jerry Sandusky have something very big in common.

---

This isn't true
(couldn't work in the Junior Samples reference, could you Gomer?)

---

Just admit Art lost the PR game.
I didn't play that game. Just pointing out how it turned out.

---

Total BS, Junior

303Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Funny, nowhere except for a couple of old TexAgs and Shaggy threads is anything nefarious in CABs past mentioned. Google turns up nothing of note, and UH has not any sanctions since the 1980's.

But, clearly everyone knows he is the worst man to walk the earth in decades.

---

It's difficult to tell if this response was serious or not.

---

Misread your previous post, thought you meant Baylor's hire.

But there isn't really any difference, man has never bee indicted, arrested or tried, and has been non-suited or dismissed from every suit that named him.

Legally, he has never done anything.

Thus, no liability for any future employer (if any).

---

From the perspective of a university, it does not matter if he was indicted, arrested, or tried.

In a hypothetical situation where a university hires Briles something occurs under Briles (not a rape, but any sort of reporting issue or staff interference issue), evidence would be able to be introduced to show why Briles was terminated from his prior employer in a lawsuit for the negligent hiring of Birles. Of course, it would never make it that far because the university would almost certainly settle, but it would settle for a larger amount that they would have if they had not hired Briles given Briles' reputation.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Funny, nowhere except for a couple of old TexAgs and Shaggy threads is anything nefarious in CABs past mentioned. Google turns up nothing of note, and UH has not any sanctions since the 1980's.

But, clearly everyone knows he is the worst man to walk the earth in decades.

---

It's difficult to tell if this response was serious or not.

---

Misread your previous post, thought you meant Baylor's hire.

But there isn't really any difference, man has never bee indicted, arrested or tried, and has been non-suited or dismissed from every suit that named him.

Legally, he has never done anything.

Thus, no liability for any future employer (if any).

---

From the perspective of a university, it does not matter if he was indicted, arrested, or tried.

In a hypothetical situation where a university hires Briles something occurs under Briles (not a rape, but any sort of reporting issue or staff interference issue), evidence would be able to be introduced to show why Briles was terminated from his prior employer in a lawsuit for the negligent hiring of Birles. Of course, it would never make it that far because the university would almost certainly settle, but it would settle for a larger amount that they would have if they had not hired Briles given Briles' reputation.

---

That's not really how negligent hiring works, but if it makes you feel better to think so, be my guest.

The PR issues may keep a University away, but fans at several schools have already floated his name. Sports fans have short memories when they see the chance for a better outcome for their team.

303Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Funny, nowhere except for a couple of old TexAgs and Shaggy threads is anything nefarious in CABs past mentioned. Google turns up nothing of note, and UH has not any sanctions since the 1980's.

But, clearly everyone knows he is the worst man to walk the earth in decades.

---

It's difficult to tell if this response was serious or not.

---

Misread your previous post, thought you meant Baylor's hire.

But there isn't really any difference, man has never bee indicted, arrested or tried, and has been non-suited or dismissed from every suit that named him.

Legally, he has never done anything.

Thus, no liability for any future employer (if any).

---

From the perspective of a university, it does not matter if he was indicted, arrested, or tried.

In a hypothetical situation where a university hires Briles something occurs under Briles (not a rape, but any sort of reporting issue or staff interference issue), evidence would be able to be introduced to show why Briles was terminated from his prior employer in a lawsuit for the negligent hiring of Birles. Of course, it would never make it that far because the university would almost certainly settle, but it would settle for a larger amount that they would have if they had not hired Briles given Briles' reputation.

---

That's not really how negligent hiring works, but if it makes you feel better to think so, be my guest.

The PR issues may keep a University away, but fans at several schools have already floated his name. Sports fans have short memories when they see the chance for a better outcome for their team.

---

University Presidents do not have short memories. He will never be a HC at the college level again. The liability risk would be too high.

303Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Funny, nowhere except for a couple of old TexAgs and Shaggy threads is anything nefarious in CABs past mentioned. Google turns up nothing of note, and UH has not any sanctions since the 1980's.

But, clearly everyone knows he is the worst man to walk the earth in decades.

---

It's difficult to tell if this response was serious or not.

---

Misread your previous post, thought you meant Baylor's hire.

But there isn't really any difference, man has never bee indicted, arrested or tried, and has been non-suited or dismissed from every suit that named him.

Legally, he has never done anything.

Thus, no liability for any future employer (if any).

---

From the perspective of a university, it does not matter if he was indicted, arrested, or tried.

In a hypothetical situation where a university hires Briles something occurs under Briles (not a rape, but any sort of reporting issue or staff interference issue), evidence would be able to be introduced to show why Briles was terminated from his prior employer in a lawsuit for the negligent hiring of Birles. Of course, it would never make it that far because the university would almost certainly settle, but it would settle for a larger amount that they would have if they had not hired Briles given Briles' reputation.

---

That's not really how negligent hiring works, but if it makes you feel better to think so, be my guest.

The PR issues may keep a University away, but fans at several schools have already floated his name. Sports fans have short memories when they see the chance for a better outcome for their team.

---

Maybe, but fan bases are going to say his name forever, but they aren't the ones that have to place their reputations/jobs on the line to hire to him.

Briles has a reputation for not reporting and allowing his staff to not report and to have improper contact with victims at a minimum, and, if something goes unreported by him or his staff, or, in the alternative, if he or his staff has improper contact with the alleged victim, the university's liability is there.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Funny, nowhere except for a couple of old TexAgs and Shaggy threads is anything nefarious in CABs past mentioned. Google turns up nothing of note, and UH has not any sanctions since the 1980's.

But, clearly everyone knows he is the worst man to walk the earth in decades.

---

It's difficult to tell if this response was serious or not.

---

Misread your previous post, thought you meant Baylor's hire.

But there isn't really any difference, man has never bee indicted, arrested or tried, and has been non-suited or dismissed from every suit that named him.

Legally, he has never done anything.

Thus, no liability for any future employer (if any).

---

From the perspective of a university, it does not matter if he was indicted, arrested, or tried.

In a hypothetical situation where a university hires Briles something occurs under Briles (not a rape, but any sort of reporting issue or staff interference issue), evidence would be able to be introduced to show why Briles was terminated from his prior employer in a lawsuit for the negligent hiring of Birles. Of course, it would never make it that far because the university would almost certainly settle, but it would settle for a larger amount that they would have if they had not hired Briles given Briles' reputation.

---

That's not really how negligent hiring works, but if it makes you feel better to think so, be my guest.

The PR issues may keep a University away, but fans at several schools have already floated his name. Sports fans have short memories when they see the chance for a better outcome for their team.

---

Maybe, but fan bases are going to say his name forever, but they aren't the ones that have to place their reputations/jobs on the line to hire to him.

Briles has a reputation for not reporting and allowing his staff to not report and to have improper contact with victims at a minimum, and, if something goes unreported by him or his staff, or, in the alternative, if he or his staff has improper contact with the alleged victim, the university's liability is there.

---

Please produce even a shred of hard evidence to support your statements re Briles' reputation. If you cannot, or will not, please refrain from making such statements. Allegations, as we have learned throughout this debacle, do not constitute evidence. Thank you.

Keyser Soze said:

---

University Presidents do not have short memories. He will never be a HC at the college level again. The liability risk would be too high.

---

Maybe, maybe not, I am not in a position to make that decision, nor will I claim to have a strong feeling either way, Briles is not our coach so I really do not care if / where he coaches again.

However, there is not special liability, from a legal perspective (which is where this thread started from), in hiring him based on what is known now.